A Prospective Study of Costs Associated With the Evaluation of Allergic Reactions to Radiological Contrast Media.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of hypersensitivity reactions to radiological contrast media (RCM) is increasing owing to the improved performance of diagnostic and therapeutic tests that require RCMs. Objective: We carried out a year-long real-life observational study to prospectively evaluate patients referred to the allergy department from primary care, the emergency department, and other specialties with suspected moderate-to-severe RCM hypersensitivity reactions. METHODS: To study the costs of evaluating RCM hypersensitivity reactions, we systematically recorded direct and indirect costs. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients with previous reactions to RCM were evaluated in the allergy department from June 1, 2017, to May 31, 2018.Total direct health care costs were €10 715.84, with a mean (SD) cost per patient of €155.30 (77.08). Specifically, direct non-health care costs reached €1605.42 (mean, €23.27 [41.14]), and indirect costs were €6490.85 (mean, €94.07 [110.61]). In summary, the total cost was €18 812.11, that is, a mean cost of €272.64 (164.77). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that the costs of an elective evaluation of hypersensitivity reactions to RCM are low, thus confirming that correct and safe management of affected patients are cost-effective. Therefore, our efforts should be directed toward ensuring the necessary logistics.

A Prospective Study of Costs Associated With the Evaluation of Allergic Reactions to Radiological Contrast Media

Background: The prevalence of hypersensitivity reactions to radiological contrast media (RCM) is increasing owing to the improved performance of diagnostic and therapeutic tests that require RCMs. Objective: We carried out a year-long real-life observational study to prospectively evaluate patients referred to the allergy department from primary care, the emergency department, and other specialties with suspected moderate-to-severe RCM hypersensitivity reactions. Methods: To study the costs of evaluating RCM hypersensitivity reactions, we systematically recorded direct and indirect costs. Results: Sixty-nine patients with previous reactions to RCM were evaluated in the allergy department from June 1, 2017, to May 31, 2018.Total direct health care costs were €10 715.84, with a mean (SD) cost per patient of €155.30 (77.08). Specifically, direct non–health care costs reached €1605.42 (mean, €23.27 [41.14]), and indirect costs were €6490.85 (mean, €94.07 [110.61]). In summary, the total cost was €18 812.11, that is, a mean cost of €272.64 (164.77). Conclusions: Our study shows that the costs of an elective evaluation of hypersensitivity reactions to RCM are low, thus confirming that correct and safe management of affected patients are cost-effective. Therefore, our efforts should be directed toward ensuring the necessary logistics (AU)

Antecedentes: La prevalencia de reacciones de hipersensibilidad a los medios de contraste radiológico (MCR) está aumentando debido al incremento en la realización de pruebas diagnósticas y terapéuticas que requieren MCR. Objetivo: Hemos realizado un estudio observacional de un año de duración para evaluar prospectivamente a los pacientes remitidos al Servicio de Alergología con sospecha de reacciones moderadas a graves por hipersensibilidad a MCR.Métodos: Para estudiar los costes de la evaluación de la hipersensibilidad a MCR, se registraron sistemáticamente los costes directos e indirectos. Resultados: Se evaluaron 69 pacientes con reacciones previas a MCR remitidos al Servicio de Alergología desde el 1 de junio de 2017 hasta el 31 de mayo de 2018. Los costes sanitarios directos totales fueron de 10.715,84 €, con un coste medio por paciente de 155,30 € ± 77,08. En concreto, los costes directos no sanitarios alcanzaron los 1.605,42 € (media 23,27 € ± 41,14 €) y los costes indirectos fueron de6.490,85 € (media 94,07 € ± 110,61 €). En resumen, el coste total fue de 18.812,11 €, lo que supone un coste medio de 272,64 ± 164,77 €. Conclusiones: Nuestro estudio refleja que los costes de una evaluación electiva de hipersensibilidad a MCR son bajos. Este hecho reafirma que el manejo correcto y seguro de estos pacientes podría ser rentable, por lo que nuestros esfuerzos deben estar dirigidos a implementar la logística necesaria (AU)

A Comprehensive Prospective Study of the Costs Associated With Evaluation of ß-Lactam Allergy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Being labeled as allergic to penicillin (unverified ß-lactam allergy) can result in patients receiving broader-spectrum antibiotics than necessary that may be more toxic, less effective, and/or more expensive than alternative options. Objective: We aimed to evaluate the real costs of evaluating ß-lactam allergy. METHODS: We performed a prospective real-life observational study designed to evaluate all adult patients who consulted for suspected ß-lactam allergy over a 1-year period. Direct and indirect costs were systematically recorded. Direct health costs were calculated based on the number of visits and all additional and diagnostic tests performed, direct nonhealth costs based on the number of visits and the distance from their homes to the Allergy Department, and indirect costs based on absenteeism. RESULTS: A total of 296 patients with suspected allergy to ß-lactams were evaluated in our outpatient clinic from June 1, 2017 to May 31, 2018. Total direct health care costs were €28 176.70, with a mean (SD) cost of €95.19 (37.20). Direct nonhealth costs reached €6551.73, that is, €22.13 (40.44) per patient. Indirect health costs reached €20 769.20, with a mean of €70.17 (127.40). In summary, the total cost was €55 497.63, that is, a cost per patient of €187.49 (148.14). CONCLUSIONS: When all possible costs are taken into account, the evaluation of ß-lactam allergy is not expensive and can reduce future expense arising from unnecessary use of more expensive and less effective antibiotics.

A Comprehensive Prospective Study of the Costs Associated With Evaluation of beta-Lactam Allergy

BACKGROUND: Being labeled as allergic to penicillin (unverified beta-lactam allergy) can result in patients receiving broader-spectrum antibiotics than necessary that may be more toxic, less effective, and/or more expensive than alternative options. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the real costs of evaluating beta-lactam allergy. METHODS: We performed a prospective real-life observational study designed to evaluate all adult patients who consulted for suspected beta-lactam allergy over a 1-year period. Direct and indirect costs were systematically recorded. Direct health costs were calculated based on the number of visits and all additional and diagnostic tests performed, direct nonhealth costs based on the number of visits and the distance from their homes to the Allergy Department, and indirect costs based on absenteeism. RESULTS: A total of 296 patients with suspected allergy to beta-lactams were evaluated in our outpatient clinic from June 1, 2017 to May 31, 2018. Total direct health care costs were (Euro)28 176.70, with a mean (SD) cost of (Euro)95.19 (37.20). Direct nonhealth costs reached (Euro)6551.73, that is, (Euro)22.13 (40.44) per patient. Indirect health costs reached (Euro)20 769.20, with a mean of (Euro)70.17 (127.40). In summary, the total cost was (Euro)55 497.63, that is, a cost per patient of (Euro)187.49 (148.14). CONCLUSIONS: When all possible costs are taken into account, the evaluation of beta-lactam allergy is not expensive and can reduce future expense arising from unnecessary use of more expensive and less effective antibiotics

INTRODUCCIÓN: Un diagnóstico no verificado de alergia a la penicilina o a los betalactámicos (BL) conlleva que los pacientes reciban antibióticos de amplio espectro, que pueden ser más tóxicos, menos efectivos, y/o de mayor coste. OBJETIVO: Evaluar los costes reales de un estudio de alergia a los betalactámicos. MÉTODOS: Se diseñó un estudio observacional prospectivo en condiciones de práctica clínica habitual en el que se evaluaron todos los pacientes adultos que consultaron por sospecha de alergia a BL durante un año. Los costes directos e indirectos se recogieron sistemáticamente. Los costes directos sanitarios se calcularon teniendo en cuenta el número de visitas y todas las pruebas diagnósticas realizadas; en los costes directos no sanitarios se consideraron el número de visitas y los kilómetros desde el domicilio hasta el Servicio de Alergología; en los costes indirectos se evaluó el absentismo. RESULTADOS: Se evaluaron 296 pacientes remitidos desde el 1 de junio de 2017 hasta el 31 de mayo de 2018. Los costes directos totales sanitarios fueron 28.176,70 (Euro): coste medio (desviación estándar, DS) de 95,19 (Euro) (37,20). Los costes directos no sanitarios alcanzaron, 6.551,73: coste medio 22,13 (40,44). Los costes indirectos fueron 20.769,20 (Euro): coste medio (DS) 70,17 (127,40). En resumen, la cantidad total fue de 55.497,63 (Euro), lo que supone un coste medio de 187,49 (Euro) (148,14). CONCLUSIONES: Considerando todos los costes posibles, la evaluación de la alergia a betalactámicos no es cara y puede ahorrar gastos futuros debido a una utilización innecesaria de antibióticos más caros y menos efectivos

Adherence to Anaphylaxis Guidelines: Real-World Data From the Emergency Department of a Tertiary Hospital.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Few studies have evaluated adherence to anaphylaxis guidelines in emergency departments (EDs). Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate adherence to anaphylaxis guidelines in the ED of a tertiary hospital. METHODS: Medical records of patients attended in the ED of University Hospital of Salamanca, Spain were reviewed. Those patients fulfilling the anaphylaxis criteria proposed by the NIAID/FAAN were selected. RESULTS: During a 1-year period, we identified 89 patients (74 adults and 15 children). The anaphylactic reaction was moderate in 65% of adults, severe in 34%, and very severe in 1%. In children, all reactions were moderate. Fewer than half of the patients (42%) received adrenaline in the ED; this was administered intramuscularly in only 19% of cases. As for the severity of the reaction, 65% of patients with moderate reactions and 42% with severe reactions were not treated with adrenaline. At discharge from the ED, an adrenaline auto-injector was recommended to only 5.6% of patients. Fifty-two percent of patients received a documented allergy referral (57% adults vs 27% children, P=.047), 29% instructions about avoidance of triggers (31% adults vs 20% children, NS), and 51% written instructions for recognition of anaphylaxis warning signs (41% adults vs 100% children, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study show a large discrepancy between recommendations in guidelines and management of anaphylaxis in the ED. Additional training efforts are needed to improve the treatment of patients with anaphylactic reactions.

Adherence to anaphylaxis guidelines: real-world data from the emergency department of a tertiary hospital

Background: Few studies have evaluated adherence to anaphylaxis guidelines in emergency departments (EDs). Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate adherence to anaphylaxis guidelines in the ED of a tertiary hospital. Methods: Medical records of patients attended in the ED of University Hospital of Salamanca, Spain were reviewed. Those patients fulfilling the anaphylaxis criteria proposed by the NIAID/FAAN were selected. Results: During a 1-year period, we identified 89 patients (74 adults and 15 children). The anaphylactic reaction was moderate in 65% of adults, severe in 34%, and very severe in 1%. In children, all reactions were moderate. Fewer than half of the patients (42%) received adrenaline in the ED; this was administered intramuscularly in only 19% of cases. As for the severity of the reaction, 65% of patients with moderate reactions and 42% with severe reactions were not treated with adrenaline. At discharge from the ED, an adrenaline auto-injector was recommended to only 5.6% of patients. Fifty-two percent of patients received a documented allergy referral (57% adults vs 27% children, P=.047), 29% instructions about avoidance of triggers (31% adults vs 20% children, NS), and 51% written instructions for recognition of anaphylaxis warning signs (41% adults vs 100% children, P<.001). Conclusion: The results of the study show a large discrepancy between recommendations in guidelines and management of anaphylaxis in the ED. Additional training efforts are needed to improve the treatment of patients with anaphylactic reactions

Antecedentes: Pocos estudios han evaluado el cumplimiento de las recomendaciones de las guías clínicas de anafilaxia en los servicios de urgencias. Objetivo: El objetivo de este estudio fue conocer el cumplimiento de las guías de anafilaxia en el servicio de urgencias (SU) de un hospital terciario. Métodos: Se revisaron los informes de los pacientes atendidos en el SU del Hospital Universitario de Salamanca durante un año y se seleccionaron los que cumplían los criterios de anafilaxia propuestos por el NIAID/FAAN. Resultados: Se identificaron 89 pacientes, 74 adultos y 15 niños. El 65% de los adultos presentó una reacción moderada, el 34% grave y el 1% muy grave; en todos los niños la gravedad fue moderada. Menos de la mitad de los pacientes (42%) fueron tratados con adrenalina, solo el 19% por vía intramuscular. El 65% de las reacciones moderadas y el 42% de las graves no recibieron adrenalina. Al alta, se recomendó un auto-inyector de adrenalina al 5,6% de los pacientes, se remitió al Servicio de Alergia al 52% (57% adultos frente a 27% niños, p=0,047), se dieron indicaciones para evitar posibles desencadenantes al 29% (31% adultos frente a 20% niños, p=.5) e instrucciones para reconocer los signos de alarma de una reacción anafiláctica al 51% (41% adultos frente a 100% niños, P<0,001). Conclusión: Los resultados del estudio muestran importantes discrepancias entre las recomendaciones de las guías clínicas y el manejo de la anafilaxia en un SU hospitalario. Es necesario un mayor esfuerzo en educación para mejorar el tratamiento de los pacientes con anafilaxia

Alimentos transgénicos y alergia / Transgenic foods and allergy

La biotecnología consiste en la aplicación de técnicas de biología molecular y/o DNA recombinante, o la transferencia in vitro de genes (bioingeniería), para el desarrollo de nuevos productos o para dotar de nuevas características a organismos ya existentes. A pesar de los beneficios potenciales que entrañan esos métodos, han surgido elementos de preocupación tanto en lo que respecta a su repercusión para la salud como para el medio ambiente. Desde un punto de vista alergológico, esos riesgos potenciales incluyen tanto la adicción de alérgenos conocidos a alimentos previamente no alergénicos, como la formación de nuevos alérgenos y la consiguiente posibilidad de sensibilización en la población expuesta susceptible. En el conocido como Protocolo de Cartagena sobre Bioseguridad se establecieron los criterios de evaluación de los riesgos que suponen los organismos modificados genéticamente. Por otra parte, la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura (FAO), de forma conjunta con la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS), han advertido también desde un punto de vista científico sobre la necesidad de evaluar la seguridad de los alimentos derivados de animales o plantas modificados genéticamente. En la presente revisión hemos querido hacer un repaso de los métodos utilizados para evaluar los potenciales riesgos de alergenicidad de los alimentos modificados genéticamente, así como de la actual legislación europea a este respecto

Biotecnology is the application of the techniques of molecular biology and/or recombinant DNA technology, or in vitro gene transfer (bioengineering), to develop products or impart specific capabilities to organisms. Despite potential benefits of such techniques, concerns have been raised about the potential consequences on health or environment. From an allergic stanpoint, potential risks include the transfer of a known allergen from a crop into a non- allergenic crop, and the creation of neo-allergens that leads the appearance of the novo sensitizaions in the allergic population. In the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety standards for risks assessment of genetically modified organisms have been set. On the other hand, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) joined to the World Health Organization (WHO) have provided scientific advice on the safety assessment of foods derived from genetically modified animals or plants. This review presents an overview of the methods used for the assessment of the potential allergenic risk of genetically modified foods and the current European legislation on this issue